User talk:Alexsmail/Computer programming/Object oriented

Here is discussion page of both Talk:Object oriented programming and Talk:Computer Programming/Procedural programming
Because I'm written concurrently two books I would like to merge this discussion pages. alexsmail 20:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Structure of the chapter
In the beginning real world example will be provided. Afterwards short definition will be done. detail implementation on Java (an sometimes on C++) will be produced. Afterwards theoretic consideration will be added. That is what is the subject of the chapter from "philosophy" point of view, implementation-independent. alexsmail 21:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts (sequence to write)
I am currently write chapter one and I accomplished describing real world examples. Now I want to write Card class in Java. I don't want to use any advanced facilities, such as enums, so It will use strings and ints only. This class will be very short and simple. Short main will be provided. Afterwards, I'll give explanation about struts in C. Afterwards, I'll rewrite this class procedurally. History of arrival C++ from C will be discussed. Afterwards, I'll explain what is constructor. Afterwards what is class and methods vs function and procedural (function and procedural comparison will be added to Procedural programming book and in this book just mentioned). Pack class will be provided. I'll finished on theory about what is object as state & behaviour. alexsmail 22:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Overloading and Overridding
How compiler choses "wrong" answer. Again about difference between overloading and overriding from complier point ot view (sameAs and sameAs2 is completely different. Even though semantic is the same as in example. Double dipsatch (extra). http://java-x.blogspot.com/2007/01/implementing-visitor-pattern-in-java.html Visitor patter (extra). Double dispatch as "beyond OO". Why conceptually compiler is right? (Remind that signature is part method definition). Brief description of Visitor Design Pattern.

Title of this book
"Object oriented" by itself is very awkward in English. You should really consider adding something on to its name, which is why I proposed 'Object oriented philosophy' in the first place. Also, if you're going to revert somebody's changes, for example, my renaming of this book, or my removal of the book links, it would really be helpful if you made a small explanation why. Thanks, -- Kowey 05:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think your are right. I have to right some explanation. I deleted word philosophy because, this book is not about a philosophy. More precisely, it is not only about philosophy. See, quote above. alexsmail 15:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Purpose of this book?
No offense, but this book doesn't seem to be of much utility. What does it contribute or plan to contribute that http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Computer_programming/Object_oriented_programming has not already covered? And why don't you just modify that book if you aren't satisfied with its topical coverage?

Functional Programming
I wanted to write my own book, but in completely different manner. I want to start from Functional Programming first. Can I begin my own book? I am new in wikibook... alexsmail 15:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If you don't intent into duplicate content creating a new book with a new approach and directed to a different audience is possible, but it will split the number of possible contributors Try to see if no one objects first to the changes (I've checked the history log for contributors and it seems the only registered users contributing content are User:Augustus.saunders and User:BillKress try posting a note on their talk page or directly contact them by email if available), give it a week if no one objects you can reshape the book, try to find another place/context to any content you will be removing if possible. See Be bold, and thanks for asking first... --Panic 19:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have post note to their talk page. Why not to create another book on the same issue? I want to include Procedural Programming too as the basis. Every chapter will be look like: breaf description of the concept, real world example, sample example on Java, lengthly discussion with more sophisticated examples using C++ example to clarify two different implementation of the same concept (and highlight difference between concept and interface) and lengthly theoretical part. alexsmail 17:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If you avoid a direct "collision" with a pre existing book, I don't think anyone will cause problems. You should also take a look into Forking policy, this is a draft of a policy, in there you may get a feeling on how some of the community feel about this type (if not exactly the same) situation, or take a look on the multiple books on C++.  --Panic 18:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I read about forking. In this case, it is ok. Because I want to introduce different approach. So, we can co-exist. alexsmail
 * I didn't get the answer from your contributors. alexsmail 11:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * reset

Ok if no one is working on it then you may decide to reshape the book or start a new one, you have given every chance to anyone to object to it, it is now up to you. --Panic 16:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

21 structure
2 Players (Dealer, second player)

more surround stay

bust >21

Card entity Suite Engine